GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Imaro]

I am not so sure about that.

4E has rules for creating classes NPCs of standard humanoid races. It also has rules for using class templates to add a class to an existing monster. It also has rules for adding other templates to a monster. It has rules for adding monster themes to monsters. And it probably has the best rules for easily leveling monsters up and down. Finally, it has decent guidelines for directly altering and creating new monsters..

3.x has rules for adding classes, prestige classes, templates, feats, skills, equipment, etc....etc. to virtually any monster... humanoid or not. So yeah IMO 3.x has a way more robust rule set for customizing monsters and NPC's. Just as an example there was a thread in the 4e rules section where a poster was having the fact that you aren't suppose to add class templates to solos explained to him.

I'm not going to claim it has more options - but I will disagree that it is 'very limited'.

Personal taste is personal taste... but I can definitely name a ton of rpg's that have more robust customization rules for NPC's and monsters than 4e has. But, IMO, I measure it by it's previous incarnation, and by that criteria IMO... it is very limited.

More than that, I think a lot of the claims about 4E monsters is that you tend to have more variety out of the book. A DM in 4E can easily grab a half-dozen varieties of orcs, directly from the books, and populate a few encounters with them. He can level them up and down in a matter of seconds. That is significantly less time investment than required to create several encounters with a diverse group of orcs in 3.5.

I agree with this... but this wasn't what was claimed earlier in this thread.

A DM could certainly create a vast array of different creatures to fill an encounter, but it was much more difficult to get the same variety instantaneously. I think that is the argument, rather than 4E having inherently more potential variety than 3.5 did.

No, that wasn't the argument put forth earlier by FireLance, he made a general statement about options with melee monsters and NPC's in 4e vs. 3.x.

The other aspect is that with the 4e methodology... you end up paying more monetarily for that quick variety as you purchase more and more singular variations of the same monster types.

 

[MrMyth]

What we're talking about is the interaction between NPCs and PCs. You, like Noonan, are apparently equating "things happening outside of combat" with "time the PCs aren't interacting with the NPCs".

Except I think you are the one making that equation, not Noonan. The attitude of "five rounds later, they're done" is explicitly a discussion of what abilities are relevant in the stat-block in the context of how many actions a creature will take. It is not in any way a claim that NPCs don't exist outside of combat. Noonan never claimed that - you made the correlation, not him, and not any of us.

It is, as I have said before, precisely this attitude of "five rounds later, they're done" -- an attitude that NPCs don't exist outside of combat -- on the part of the WotC designers that results in modules which don't have anything happening outside of combat.

"Nothing" happening outside of combat? Ok, Keep on the Shadowfell was a slugfest, but not every 4E module is the same. There are indeed scenes and opportunities to interact with NPCs outside of combat. To gather information, socialize, get involved in intrigue, chase after bad guys, sneak into dangerous places, find your way through labyrinths of madness...

Are they as common as the combat? No, but that is an issue with adventure design more than something fundamentally tied to what monsters are capable of.

Every time I've pointed out that monsters still have relevant stats, skills and abilities that a DM can use to have them interact out of combat, you've chosen to respond to some other point entirely. And more than that - most relevant information for interacting out of combat isn't what a monster can do, but instead how it acts. We need to know motivations, personality and approaches. It doesn't hurt to have some options beyond the norm, sure, but they aren't necessary. You pointed out that Detect Thoughts can be really useful if the fortress goes on alert and the enemy needs to find the PCs.

But in what way is Detect Thoughts required for that scene? It remains a non-combat situation if the PCs are sneaking about, bluffing their way past guards, sneaking through the corridors, scaling the walls, while the enemy hunts down their tracks and tries to seal them in. Can Detect Thoughts enhance such a scene? Sure, probably. (Unless, say, it bypasses everything the PCs are doing and forces combat to happen anyway.) But regardless of what it does, it is never required for that scene, and is tangential to it at best.

The connection between "I don't think NPCs exist outside of combat" and "I've designed an adventure in which nothing happens outside of combat" is so crystal clear I am baffled that there are people in this thread (or anywhere else) arguing that there isn't a connection.

Because this ties back to a faulty premise. No one thinks NPCs don't exist outside of combat. Every time you claim that is the core of the opposing side's argument, you are missing the entire point of the discussion to begin with.

Then why did you describe Noonan's claim that NPCs exist only in combat a being a "truthful statement"?

He never said that! He said they live about 5 rounds in combat, and don't need a stat block with 30 different choices for the DM to make every round! He also said that we don't need mechanics detailing how they interact with other NPCs out of combat.

Neither of those is a claim that they do not exist out of combat, nor that we don't need rules detailing how they interact with PCs out of combat!

What I actually said (echoing what Noonan said): "If we have an encounter with 5 of those monsters at the same time and each of them survives an average of 5 rounds, then that stat block actually needs to fill up 25 rounds worth of actions." (emphasis added)

Ah, fair enough, I missed the "average" mention in that quote.

And I'm arguing that when you use "is this ability useful in combat?" as your standard for whether or not abilities should be cut, then it's highly suggestive that your focus is on combat.

Note the bolded part above. That's the real problem here.

Because yes, absolutely, the focus is on combat. At least 90% of the time, combat is how most monsters will interact with PCs. And so the "is this ability useful in combat" is indeed given higher weight - possibly higher than it should be, in some things.

The problem is, you have somehow leaped from that scenario... to claiming that by prioritizing combat relevance, we are outright exiling non-combat interaction from the game. Which isn't true. Which isn't a goal of the designers, isn't inherent in the system, nor the experiences of the people playing the game.

Someone should tell WotC's designers.

Let's take Keep on the Shadowfell. There are 14 encounters 5+ copies of the same monster (On the Road, A2, A3, Area 4, Area 5, Area 7, Area 9, Area 10, Interlude 3, Area 12, Area 13, Area 17, Area 18, Area 19); there are 6 encounters with 3-4 copies (A1, A4, Area 2, Area 3, Area 6, Area 14); and only 4 encounters without 3+ duplicate stat blocks (Area 1, Area 8, Area 11, Area 15).

That's a 5:1 ratio of 3+ duplicates to non-duplicate encounters.[/quote[

As was already pointed out - only one single combat featured five of the same non-minion monster. Using minions as an example is a fundamental misunderstanding of their role in the game, as 4-6 of them are equivalent to a single monster.

Now, yes, there are plenty of combats that feature 3 of the same monster in them. Because... that is how most 4E combats are designed. You'll often see 2-3 of the same monster in an encounter, when it isn't supposed to be a unique figure. That doesn't lead to the same extremes of redundancy you were worried about with having every encounter filled solely with duplicates of one creature.

I notice you didn't comment on my demonstration that even 5 of the same monster - even a simple monster like the Orc Raider - isn't the end of the world, and shouldn't lead to the "bland, stale, inflexible" statblocks you fear. I also remain curious as to how much experience you have with 4E, and if you are basing this on the theory of how things play out, or actual experience with the game.

Sure. And since there's no difference in the amount of mechanical support for diverse encounters between 3rd Edition and 4th Edition, that particular issue is essentially irrelevant.

This gets into the other discussion going on, and I will continue to hold to the same position. Both editions have the potential for distinct and diverse encounters, but I feel that 4E provides access to that diversity without the same investment of time and effort on the behalf of the DM.

Now, admittedly, adventures are a different situation, since the writer is going ahead and doing that work for you. Which, mind you, is potentially even more a mark against the writers of the 4E adventures - given how much less time the actual encounter design should take, one would think they'd have more time to invest in the story!

But either way, in terms of actual DM prep time of such things, it has certainly been my experience that it takes far less work to build a diverse encounter of even mundance opponents in 4E, as opposed to 3.5.

 

[FireLance]

No, the great stories are never about balanced encounters (even though, sometimes, they actually might be).

The great stories are never about balanced encounters because in stories, million to one chances come up nine times out of ten.

And the reason why that happens is because most stories aren't about the 999,999 other guys.

While I do recognize that it's a matter of taste, in a game, I don't really want to play through a scenario 999,999 times to get that one moment of awesome.

 

[MrMyth]

3.x has rules for adding classes, prestige classes, templates, feats, skills, equipment, etc....etc. to virtually any monster... humanoid or not. So yeah IMO 3.x has a way more robust rule set for customizing monsters and NPC's. Just as an example there was a thread in the 4e rules section where a poster was having the fact that you aren't suppose to add class templates to solos explained to him.

Well, I'll have to agree to disagree there. The existing options have let me build pretty much whatever monsters I need. And when I need to go beyond that... it may be DM fiat, but I've found 4E far more forgiving of the ability to simply add or swap abilities for monsters, and know that it remains an appropriate challenge when I am done.

No, that wasn't the argument put forth earlier by FireLance, he made a general statement about options with melee monsters and NPC's in 4e vs. 3.x.

Well, I think his argument was more firmly rooted in the context of most by-the-book monsters rather than hand-built NPCs. But even outside of that, I think it also came down to the fact that most melee types tend to have only one thing they do, and it usually was get into combat and full attack. Which certainly isn't an absolute truth - many monsters had abilities like grab, poison, etc.

But - especially with the very important level of mobility in 4E - I think you end up with melee fights playing out much more dynamically than they typically did in 3.5. At least it has been so in my experience. My fighter would run up to an enemy and they would trade blows, whether that enemy was a goblin or an orc or an ogre or a giant. The difference between them was pretty much just how much damage they did. In 4E, I've found myself much more likely to see that goblin manuevering about me during the fight, the orc getting his frenzy on and keep the fight going even when he should drop, the giant stomping me to the ground and stepping on me. The ogre... well, I guess the ogre still pretty much just stands there and hits things. At least one ogre does - but there are a dozen more to choose from if I really want to.

That's the sort of diversity I think Firelance was discussing.

The other aspect is that with the 4e methodology... you end up paying more monetarily for that quick variety as you purchase more and more singular variations of the same monster types.

I have no idea what you are trying to say with this sentence. Are you saying it costs more money to buy additional resource books in 4E? I'm not trying to intentionally misinterpret your words here, I'm genuinely confused - would you be able to rephrase your point? I don't know if my brain simply shut down or what, but I have absolutely no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.

 

[MerricB]

3.x has rules for adding classes, prestige classes, templates, feats, skills, equipment, etc....etc. to virtually any monster... humanoid or not. So yeah IMO 3.x has a way more robust rule set for customizing monsters and NPC's.

Detailed? Yes. Robust? No.

Robustness requires that the Challenge Rating derived from adding these features to monsters be accurate, something it often failed dreadfully at. The most dreadful failures in my experience generally occurred when you added size and/or hit dice to something which worked by grappling the PCs, but there were plenty of other problems. For simple advancement, the system often worked, but the more non-standard the creature, the more problematic and less robust the system became.

Just as an example there was a thread in the 4e rules section where a poster was having the fact that you aren't suppose to add class templates to solos explained to him.

That's not an example of robustness (for or against). It's an example of the inadequacies of one particular point of description... or the comprehension abilities of that poster.

 

[Imaro]

Detailed? Yes. Robust? No.

Robustness requires that the Challenge Rating derived from adding these features to monsters be accurate, something it often failed dreadfully at. The most dreadful failures in my experience generally occurred when you added size and/or hit dice to something which worked by grappling the PCs, but there were plenty of other problems. For simple advancement, the system often worked, but the more non-standard the creature, the more problematic and less robust the system became.

Okay, semantics. You're right Merric, I used the wrong word for what we were talking about (there's only so many times you can repeat yourself before you make a vocabulary mistake).... which was number of available options. My point still stands, 3.x had more options available to customize NPC's and monsters. As far as true robustness... that's certainly debatable (just like grind in 4e) since just as many people claim to have not had these problems as claim they have.

That's not an example of robustness (for or against). It's an example of the inadequacies of one particular point of description... or the comprehension abilities of that poster.

Actually it was an example of the limitations even within the categories of modification that is available to NPC's and monsters in 4e.

 

[innerdude]

Because yes, absolutely, the focus is on combat. At least 90% of the time, combat is how most monsters will interact with PCs.

And if this is your design paradigm for your entire RPG system, then you're making a mistake.

I'll be the first to admit that D&D has historically been combat-oriented, at least during the Dungeon part of the Dungeons and Dragons equation.

But the Dungeon part of the Dungeons and Dragons equation is supported by an entire framework, or scaffolding, if you will, of an assumption that there is some sense of a reality outside those dungeon walls. Not our own reality, mind you, but a reality, a reality created by the GM, the campaign world, the physical properties of that world, and yes, the way NPCs interact with PCs and each other.

And the less material you have to support that external reality in a consistent (not realistic, but CONSISTENT) fashion, the less "real"--again, not "realistic," but real, in the sense that it "exists"--every aspect of the game other than combat is going to feel.

 

[pemerton]

A lot of people praise 4E for being a great tactical mini game.

That wasn't quite what I said. I referred to its support for tactical combat in a fantasy RPG. And I meant "RPG" when I said it. Not only does 4e support tactics of the sort that might be fun in a minis game, but it does in my experience it does so in a way that supports roleplaying. And this is not only an issue of colour (eg the mobility of sorcerers and wraiths has a different flavour from the mobility of fighters and goblilns) but of theme - different tactical options for monsters open up thematic questions for the players to address - such as cowardice vs courage, cooperation vs self-aggrandisement, caution vs risk, and so on.

Until 4e, the game I spent most of my RPG time on was Rolemaster. Rolemaster has tactical considerations with thematic consequences (the main one being choice of OB/DB split from round to round) which were a huge part of what I and my players enjoyed about RM. Part of the reason for moving to 4e is that it provides the same sort of roleplaying experience in a package that has many other virtues that RM lacks, while introducing comparatively few flaws (RM characters are thematically richer than 4e characters, but not by much, espcecially as those 4e characters gain levels).

What I would like to see for 4e is a better development of the skill challenge rules, so that they better supported the integration of those thematic aspects of combat into non-combat encounters (eg what difference should it make to an Intimidate in a skill challenge that an NPC has seen a PC fight a combat using a certain set of powers and abilities? - of course I can wing this stuff, but some guidelines written by professional designers, who have more time than me to think hard about mechanical balance, efficiency and coherence, would help).

 

[pemerton]

And if this is your design paradigm for your entire RPG system, then you're making a mistake.

<snip>

And the less material you have to support that external reality in a consistent (not realistic, but CONSISTENT) fashion, the less "real"--again, not "realistic," but real, in the sense that it "exists"--every aspect of the game other than combat is going to feel.

I disagree with this quite strongly. In effect, you are asserting that any way of RPGing D&D (perhaps, even, of RPGing in general) that adopts a "No Myth" approach, or some other sort of non-simulationist approach to the game, is a mistake. My own experience tells me that this is not so.

More generally, it makes me wonder how much familiarity you have with games written to support non-simulationist play which are neither combat oriented nor shallow, but aren't based on the sort of attention to ingame reality that you are asserting to be essential (I'm thinking of games like HeroQuest, The Dying Earth, My Life With Master, etc).

 

[pemerton]

A DM in 4E can easily grab a half-dozen varieties of orcs, directly from the books, and populate a few encounters with them. He can level them up and down in a matter of seconds.

Very true. I can also use varied creatures of any level, whereas in 3E adding HD, Prestige Classes, Templates etc changes the challenge rating.